From mileage loss to rising repair bills: What a survey on E20 fuel found

The Union government can no longer afford to ignore mounting consumer concerns over E20 fuel, as the latest nationwide survey shows a sharp increase in complaints about fuel efficiency and vehicle maintenance among owners of pre-2023 vehicles, said Sachin Taparia, founder and chairman of LocalCircles, a community social media platform.

While he stopped short of claiming that E20 is conclusively responsible for every issue reported, he argues that the trend is significant enough to warrant a thorough investigation and greater consumer choice.

On the latest episode of AI With Sanket, The Federal spoke to Taparia about the findings of the E20 fuel survey, how public perception has evolved over the past year, and why he believes motorists should have the option of choosing between E0, E10 and E20 fuel.

Also read: Centre never called E20 fuel programme an ‘experiment’ in SC: Attorney General's office

What does the latest LocalCircles survey reveal about the impact of E20 fuel on mileage?

This is the third E20 impact survey that LocalCircles has conducted. We first carried out the survey in September last year, when the E20 programme had been mandatory for only about four months. We conducted another survey in May, and because we received so many complaints over the last 30 days, we decided to repeat the survey again at the end of June.

We felt awareness among consumers had increased, and we expected the numbers to change. That is exactly what happened. The numbers have steadily been rising. If we look specifically at respondents reporting at least a 10 per cent drop in mileage, that figure was below 20 per cent in September last year. It rose to around 45 per cent in May, and in the June survey it reached a staggering 66 per cent.

Based on the trends and patterns we analyse at LocalCircles, there is a high probability that by the end of July, this figure could touch 80 per cent. That would mean that out of every 100 owners of pre-2023 petrol vehicles, around 80 could report a mileage loss of over 10 per cent.

This is clearly an issue that the government should not ignore. It should carefully examine every aspect — whether it is the way ethanol is blended with petrol, the distribution process, or what is happening at petrol pumps. Everything should be scrutinised to ensure consumers experience only the expected one to five per cent reduction in mileage, and not the much larger losses that many respondents are reporting.

For many families, this directly affects their monthly household budget. If someone expects to spend Rs 20,000 a month on commuting but suddenly finds themselves spending Rs 25,000 or Rs 30,000 because their vehicle delivers significantly lower mileage, it becomes a serious financial burden. This issue deserves urgent attention.

Also read: E20 petrol rollout is still an experiment; results expected by next year: Govt to SC

How has the survey evolved over time, and are the same respondents being tracked?

There is considerable continuity in the respondents. Around 60 per cent of the participants in this survey are people who also took part in earlier surveys, while roughly 40 per cent are new participants.

What we are seeing is that awareness of this issue has grown significantly. When we first conducted the survey last year, many vehicle owners were not paying close attention because they did not think it was an important issue. Most people do not constantly monitor the mileage displayed by their vehicle because they assume it will remain more or less the same.

As awareness has increased, more and more people have begun checking their mileage regularly. That has naturally resulted in more people identifying and reporting problems.

From a statistical perspective, we analyse the sample as a whole, ensuring that it includes participants from different regions and demographic groups. Within the group that participated in the May survey, we have observed a clear increase in complaints. At the same time, many first-time respondents are also reporting similar concerns.

So both returning participants and new participants are indicating that there is an issue.

Also read: E20 fuel row: Experts question transparency in ethanol rollout

Could changes in driving conditions rather than E20 fuel be responsible for the reported mileage loss?

Traffic congestion, waterlogging, and similar problems have always existed. Drivers are familiar with these situations. That is precisely why conducting a timeline-based survey is important. A one-off survey may not reveal a clear pattern, but repeatedly asking the same people over time helps us identify consistent trends.

We specifically ask respondents whether they attribute the mileage loss to E20 fuel. That is a very direct question. The people responding are saying they believe the mileage reduction is linked to E20. That is why we believe this issue deserves national attention. Earlier, during the first six to nine months after E20 became mandatory, people were not paying much attention. Now they are monitoring their vehicles much more closely, and many are coming back to report that they have experienced a problem.

Apart from mileage, what does the survey indicate about vehicle wear and tear?

There are two aspects to this discussion. On one hand, some videos circulating on social media exaggerate the situation by claiming there are widespread engine failures or major fuel pump failures because of E20. I believe some of those claims are overstated.

However, the qualitative feedback we have received from respondents points towards issues such as corrosion in fuel tanks and injectors. I am not an automobile expert, but these are the concerns repeatedly raised by vehicle owners. They are also reporting deterioration of rubber and plastic components, damage to gaskets and other parts of the fuel system, along with failures of certain components.

What many consumers are noticing is that when they visit their mechanic for routine servicing, they are being told that additional parts such as filters need replacement, increasing the overall maintenance bill.

In our survey, respondents were specifically asked whether they attribute these additional maintenance costs to E20 fuel, and many answered that they do. We are not seeing widespread catastrophic failures like engines or fuel pumps breaking down. It would be unrealistic to expect that.

But what we are seeing is an increase in wear and tear, leading to higher maintenance costs. Over the medium to long term, this could raise the overall cost of owning a vehicle and reduce the lifespan of certain components. That is what respondents are telling us at this point.

The survey shows complaints about wear and tear have almost doubled in a month. Why do you think that has happened?

The percentage was around 29 per cent in May. It has now increased to 55 per cent. That was perhaps the biggest surprise for us. I think this has happened partly because people have become much more aware that the fuel they are using has changed. Earlier, people simply filled petrol without thinking about whether it was E0, E10 or E20.

Now they are paying attention. They are comparing their latest service bill with what they paid previously. They are asking whether additional filters, gaskets or fuel system components had to be replaced.

People are noticing that their maintenance costs have increased. If this trend continues, I believe these numbers will rise further in future surveys. This is something the government should examine carefully. It needs to understand why this is happening.

Ultimately, many consumers are simply asking for a choice. If someone believes E20 works well for their vehicle and they are comfortable with whatever mileage drop it brings, they should use E20. But those who own vehicles that are not compatible with E20 should have access to E0 or E10 fuel.

Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, those options are no longer available. In some places, the nearest petrol pump selling E0 may be 20 or 25 kilometres away.

In Delhi, for example, there are only a handful of petrol stations selling pure petrol, and it costs around Rs 162 per litre. In Mumbai, it is even more expensive. Is it reasonable to expect owners of older vehicles to spend Rs 160 or Rs 180 per litre simply because they want fuel that is better suited to their vehicles? That is the question.

Which vehicle owners were included in this survey?

This survey covers owners of vehicles manufactured in 2022 or earlier. It is a balanced sample. Around 51 per cent are four-wheeler owners and 49 per cent are two-wheeler owners. These vehicles were manufactured before E20 compatibility became standard. They were E10-compliant vehicles. Having said that, over the last 30 to 45 days, we have also started receiving complaints from owners of vehicles manufactured in 2023, 2024, 2025 and even 2026.

They are also reporting mileage drops. We have not yet reached any conclusions because those complaints are still being analysed. But if owners of E20-compatible vehicles are also reporting mileage reductions, that becomes a separate issue that the government should investigate carefully. The current survey, however, focuses specifically on pre-2023 vehicles, where respondents are saying they are experiencing both mileage loss and increased maintenance costs.

There appears to be a gap between laboratory estimates and what consumers say they are experiencing. How do you explain that?

Our survey clearly suggests there is a disconnect between laboratory estimates and what consumers are experiencing on the road. The official expectation has been that fuel efficiency would reduce only marginally. But respondents are saying something very different.

If 66 per cent of owners of older vehicles are reporting mileage losses exceeding 10 per cent, then there is a gap that deserves closer examination. The government needs to understand why this difference exists rather than simply assuming laboratory estimates fully reflect real-world conditions.

What should happen after this survey?

We recently conducted another survey asking consumers what they believe should happen next. A very large majority said they simply want E0 and E10 fuel to be made available alongside E20. This is already the practice in many countries.

Consumers should be allowed to decide. If someone prefers the lower cost of E20 and is satisfied with its performance, they should choose E20. If another consumer feels that spending more on fuel will reduce maintenance costs over time, they should have the option of buying E10. It should be the consumer's choice.

It should not be something imposed on consumers. That is the simple message we are hearing from people.

Some argue that proving E20 is responsible for wear and tear is difficult. How do you respond?

I think that is a fair point. It is extremely difficult for an individual vehicle owner to conclusively prove that a specific repair was caused by E20 fuel. If someone approaches the government, the response is likely to be that there is no conclusive proof because official studies say otherwise.

That is why we are now seeing mechanics speaking publicly about what they are observing. Many journalists and YouTube channels are interviewing mechanics, and several of them are saying they are noticing changes.

I believe the government should take those observations seriously and conduct a proper investigation. If that investigation concludes that the actual mileage loss is significantly higher than expected, then E0 and E10 fuel should once again be made available as options.

You also believe policymaking needs to involve greater public consultation. Why is that important?

I think there is a broader lesson here. When policies have a direct impact on household budgets, it becomes extremely important for governments to carry out broad-based consultations before implementing them. Unfortunately, that has consistently not happened with the road transport ministry.

The vehicle scrappage policy is another example where there are significant concerns. There are many people, particularly in Delhi-NCR, who own vehicles that are 15 years old but have been driven only 40,000 kilometres. They may use those vehicles only occasionally. Their children may be living abroad. They may drive only a few kilometres to the market.

From a scientific point of view, simply asking them to scrap a vehicle because of its age does not necessarily make sense. We have received thousands of complaints from residents who feel these policies should be based on actual vehicle condition rather than age alone. Going forward, we would like to see policymaking become much more consultative, with greater participation from citizens instead of being entirely top-down.

What is your final message after this latest survey?

Our position is very straightforward. The government should carefully investigate the concerns that consumers are raising. If those concerns are found to be valid, then consumers should have the freedom to choose between E0, E10 and E20 fuel. People should decide for themselves what works best for their vehicle and their household budget. That is the simplest and fairest solution.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)